Letters to the Editor for July 15 edition

Patterson says county citizens deserve answers

When I began to look at the July 8, 2026 edition of The Fincastle Herald (Herald) last week, I planned to open it to the page where the legal advertisements appear. I was specifically going to read a legal advertisement for the Planning Commission (PC) meeting on July 13. I wanted to see what, if anything, appeared therein regarding the totally meaningless proposal made by Mark Tyson to which we were exposed for about 20 grueling minutes at the June 8 PC meeting.

Even after being advised by the county attorney at that meeting that going out and studying something is not really part of the PC’s purview, someone prepared a letter for him to sign which the Herald published in the July 1 edition regarding an investigative water “hearing” he or his handlers plan to convene.

Thereafter, on July 3, Botetourt County did a media release stating that the PC does not have the legal authority to independently convene or direct public hearings.

While opening the paper, I was shocked to see the headline below the fold on the first page regarding the Planning Commission shifting legal notices to an online publication!

Accordingly, I then went to that online publication (not the one done by the Herald) and, after clicking on two different prompts, I pulled up a page which has a synopsis of legal ads three columns across and not in any identifiable alphabetical order and finally found the one which was not published in the Herald that day, although the aforementioned Herald article served as a “free” legal ad as it correctly listed the items scheduled for that meeting, none of which address the water “hearing.”

The question is, “Why are not legal advertisements for PC meetings no longer published in the Herald?” Apparently, there are different answers or excuses ranging from (1) saving the taxpayers money (budget constraints) to (2) the Planning and Zoning office not having enough employees to get their work done to (3) allegedly being able to get last-minute matters timely advertised before a scheduled meeting.

It has been noted that the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors (BoS) is fiscally conservative, but that two of its members go to the extreme and want to cut out spending money whenever and wherever. Those same two are the ones who made and seconded the motion to approve a $69 million tax incentive financing package. So what is being saved by this move?

First of all, a fee is charged whenever anyone seeks permission to do something that needs approval from the BoS, such as a special exception, a zoning change, etc. Part of that fee is the cost of the legal advertisement as to when and where that matter will be heard by the PC and the BoS. How does this save taxpayer money?

Secondly, I would be interested to know exactly how much Botetourt County has spent on legal advertisements for Planning Commission hearings over the past five years. If that amount is divided among the county’s residents over that period, I suspect the annual cost per person is minimal. Was eliminating legal notices worth that savings?

Lastly, and most importantly, the Herald has been publishing its newspaper since 1866, has been and continues to be the only source for this type of information (and a myriad of all types of other important and informative information) for many Botetourt County residents, and it is received in print and online by in excess of 4,000 households, many of whom don’t want to look elsewhere.

We constantly hear complaints about almost everything, but much of it is about a perceived lack of transparency. Are the ones who pushed this through trying to add to the perception of a lack of transparency under the guise of saving taxpayer money? And, as a practical matter, why wasn’t this discussed at a public meeting before it was done? Wouldn’t that have been more open and honest?

Staffing limitations are also blamed for this decision. Has this situation been created by those two BoS members who constantly applaud themselves for the great job done on cutting the budget? My guess would be that, behind public safety and fire and EMS, planning and zoning at this time may be the next busiest department in Botetourt County, and they are understaffed? Why?

Most are aware that an excellent and experienced long-time employee recently retired, but surely that was known long beforehand and, after all, this is a planning department? Are the recent budget cuts the reason for the understaffing? Before that retirement, were planning and zoning staff so overworked that they did not have time to look into hiring a replacement? Does anyone think that citizens of this county deserve answers?

Another reason for going online is that some last minute matters do not allow sufficient time for publication in a printed weekly newspaper, but the Herald also is an online publication. Was that even considered?

At a recent public meeting, while complaining about a current situation which was openly and legally advertised before implementing the change, one was heard to repeatedly whine and gripe, “We didn’t know.” While the planning department shifting legal notices to an online publication meets the requirements of the law, how many more will be making this complaint because such notices are not where they are accustomed to finding them and they may not partake of the online publication where these legal notices now apparently exclusively reside?

Bob Patterson

Fincastle

Buchanan District

Botetourt, Roanoke region deserve real water numbers for Google’s Project Raspberry

The public has repeatedly heard that Google’s Project Raspberry may need up to 8 million gallons of water per day. But public records show that behind the scenes, the planning discussions were larger and more troubling.

In July 2024, project-related questions asked how to reach 3.5 million gallons per day for “Day 01” and discussed a dedicated water-main extension, tanks and pumps to achieve 10 to 11 million gallons per day to the site. In April 2026, after the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) asked whether Google wanted to keep a Day 1 plus Day N approach or “skip over Day 1” and focus on constructing Day N from the start, a Google representative responded that the preferred approach was to proceed with the Day N framework and skip Day 1.

That does not prove WVWA has agreed to provide 10 or 11 million gallons per day. But it does show the public has not been given the full picture.

This is not a minor technical detail. Water capacity affects drought planning, reservoir reliability, infrastructure costs, sewer capacity, ratepayer risk, and whether other communities and future users may be constrained. One engineer noted that 3.5 million gallons per day for the first building would likely require improvements beyond currently planned projects.

If the larger water scenario is no longer being pursued, Google, WVWA and Botetourt County should say so clearly and in writing. If it remains part of the plan, the public deserves to know before grading begins and before infrastructure decisions become irreversible.

Residents should not be asked to accept one number in public while larger numbers appear in planning records. The question is simple: what is the true maximum water demand for Project Raspberry, who will pay for the infrastructure, and what happens during drought?

Before this project moves forward, those answers should be public. Not later. Now.

Southwest Virginia Data Center Transparency Alliance, https://swvadcta.org